Advertisement

Ontologies are not the Panacea in Data Integration: A Flexible Coordinator to Mediate Context Construction

  • Aris M. Ouksel
  • Iqbal Ahmed
Chapter

Abstract

Shared ontologies describe concepts and relationships to resolve semantic conflicts amongst users accessing multiple autonomous and heterogeneous information sources. We contend that while ontologies are useful in semantic reconciliation, they do not guarantee correct classification of semantic conflicts, nor do they provide the capability to handle evolving semantics or a mechanism to support a dynamic reconciliation process. Their limitations are illustrated through a conceptual analysis of several prominent examples used in heterogeneous database systems and in natural language processing. We view semantic reconciliation as a nonmonotonic query-dependent process that requires flexible interpretation of query context, and as a mechanism to coordinate knowledge elicitation while constructing the query context. We propose a system that is based on these characteristics, namely the SCOPES (Semantic Coordinator Over Parallel Exploration Spaces) system. SCOPES takes advantage of ontologies to constrain exploration of a remote database during the incremental discovery and refinement of the context within which a query can be answered. It uses an Assumption-based Truth Maintenance System (ATMS) to manage the multiple plausible contexts which coexist while the semantic reconciliation process is unfolding, and the Dempster-Shafer (DS) theory of belief to model the likelihood of these plausible contexts.

Keywords

ontology semantic reconciliation heterogeneous database systems heterogeneous information systems semantic interoperability data integration semantic conflicts 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    C. Batini, M. Lenzerini, and S. Navathe, “A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 18, no. 4, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M.W. Bright, A.R. Hurson, and S. Pakzad, “Automated resolution of semantic heterogeneity in multi-databases,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 212–253, June 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. DeKleer, “An assumption-based truth maintenance system,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 28, pp. 197–224, 1986.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Goh, M. Siegel, and S. Madnick, “Context interchange: Overcoming the challenges of large scale inter-operable database systems in a dynamic environment,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Management, Maryland, 1994, pp. 337–346.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T.R. Gruber, “A translation approach to portable ontology specifications,” Knowledge Acquisition, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 199 - 220, 1993. http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Kahng and D. McLeod, “Dynamic classificational ontologies: Mediators for sharing in cooperative federated database,” in Proc. 1st IFCIS International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CooplS ‘86), Brussels, Belgium, June 1996, pp. 26–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. Kashyap and A. Sheth, “Schematic and semantic similarities between database objects: A context-based approach,” VLDB Journal, vol. 5, no. 4, October 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Litwin, I. Mark, and N. Roussoupoulos, “Interoperability of multiple autonomous databases,’ ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 22, no. 3, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Mahesh and S. Nirenburg, “A situated ontology for practical NLP,” in Proc. Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), Montreal, Canada, August 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. Mahesh and S. Nirenburg, “Meaning representation for knowledge sharing in practical machine translation,” in Proc. FLAIRS-96 Track on Information Interchange, Florida AI Research Symposium, May 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Mena, V. Kashyap, A. Sheth, and A. Illarramendi, “OBSERVER: An approach for query processing in global information systems based on interoperation across pre-existing ontologies.,” in Proceedings of the 1st IFCIS International Conf. on Cooperative Information Systems (CooplS ‘86), Brussels, Belgium, June 1996, pp. 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    MIKROKOSMOS: http://crl.nmsu.edu/Research/Projects/mikro/ontology/onto-intro-page.htmlGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Milliner, A. Bouguettaya, and M. Papazoglou, “A scalable architecture for autonomous heterogeneous database interactions,” in Proc. the 21st International Conference on Very Large Databases, VLDB ‘85 Proceedings, Zurich, Switzerland, September 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Naiman and A. Ouksel, “A classification of semantic conflicts,” Journal of Organizational Computing, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 167–193, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Ouksel and I. Ahmed, “Plausible inference of context in heterogeneous information systems,” in Proc. 5th International Workshop on Information Systems and Technology, Amsterdam, December 1995, pp. 120–129.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Ouksel and I. Ahmed, “Coordinating knowledge elicitation to support context construction in cooperative information systems,” in Proc. 1st IFCIS International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS ‘86), Brussels, Belgium, June 1996, pp. 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Ouksel and I. Ahmed, “Using SCOPES for dynamic construction of context in heterogeneous information systems,” in Proc. AIS 1996 Americas Conference on Information Systems, Phoenix, Arizona, August 1996, pp. 623–625.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Ouksel and C. Naiman, “Coordinating context building in heterogeneous information systems,” Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, vol. 3, pp. 151–183, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. Sciore, M. Siegel, and A. Rosenthal, “Using semantic values to facilitate interoperability among heterogeneous information systems,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, pp. 254–290, June 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Shafer, (1976). A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton N.J.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Sheth and J. Larson, “Federated database systems,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 22, no. 3, 1990.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Siegel and S. Madnick, “A metadata approach to resolving semantic conflicts,” in Proc. 7th International Conference on Very Large Databases, September 1991, pp. 133–145.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. Wiederhold, “Mediators in the architecture of future information systems,” Computer, vol. 25, no. 3, March 1992.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations. Macmillan Publishing: New York, NY, 1953.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    WWW, Refer to: Design Criteria for Ontologies: http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/vega/CoMem/Ontology/ontodesign-gruber/subsection3_1 _2.html 28 Feb 95Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    WWW, Refer to: Plan Ontology Construction Group (POCO): KRSL 2.0.2 Ontology Hierarchy: http://isx.com/pub/ARPI/ARPI-pub/krsliontology-hierarchy.txtGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. Yu, B. Jia, W. Sun, and S. Dao, “Determining relationships among names in heterogeneous databases,” SIGMOD RECORD, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 79–80. December 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aris M. Ouksel
    • 1
  • Iqbal Ahmed
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information and Decision Sciences (M/C 294)The University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations